"They dearly loved and admired this man and were personally familiar with his gifts for ministry, pastoral counseling and organization. They were afraid that the diocese 'was not ready for a gay Bishop' and hence their 'no' vote. They were delighted and amazed to be a very small minority vote." Kate Bishop

Those of Via Media differ in their attitudes about how to approach the question of homosexuality in the church, but all would agree with the presiding bishop in seeing the face of God in the face of our gay brothers and sisters as well as all fellow Episcopalians.

Some in Via Media would agree with Frank Griswold that Biblical authors assumed everyone was heterosexual and that while some behaved in a homosexual style, the authors had no concept of homosexuality being an 'orientation' natural for some, and hence one would be dealing with a reality not reflected in scripture. The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that Paul was deprecating heterosexuals who, against their nature, were performing homosexual acts.

Some would say that the creation story of Adam and Eve was about origins and continuity of existance and wouldn't be an appropriate place to discuss a union of "Adam and Steve."

Whatever attitudes and positions one may have on homosexuality, the concerns and re-evaluations of folks throughout the Christian denominations have led to some bothersome questions:

1. Was the moral of the story of Sodom really about Homosexuality? Or was Lot's assessment the real moral: "But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." (Genesis 19:8)
   
   If Sodom's sin was supposed to be homosexual, why did not other Biblical writers make that connection? Why do the four prophets who speak of Sodom and Gomorrah not connect it with homosexuality? Why does Jesus not?
   
   
2. Should the prohibition of man sleeping with man in Genesis, sandwiched as it was among verses that Christians have divested themselves of, be retained or likewise excluded? Should this regulation be considered as part of the 'holiness code' whose provisions no longer apply to Christians?
   
   
3. When Paul spoke of homosexual acts as being against nature did he speak with more authority than when he said that women should not speak in church but should cover their hair? Now that we know similiar behaviors exist in the animal kingdom, in what sense can these behaviors be said to be against nature?
   
   
4. Is the presiding bishop correct in conjecturing that today's questions of homosexuality concern "a reality not reflected in Scripture?"
   
   
5. Is the Archbishop of Canterbury's conjecture correct that Paul was only addressing those of an inherent heterosexual orientation?
   
   

"For a number of people, sexuality raises large concerns because they see monogamous heterosexuality in lifelong marriage as the only way that sexual expression is allowed in the church. Though I will say, parenthetically, that there has not been the same upset over permission for divorced people to be remarried. And in that case, Jesus is quite clear about [his opposition to] divorce. Isn’t it interesting that this doesn’t cause the same kind of upset? I think it’s because the majority of people who are sexually active are heterosexual and a great many of them are married, and so they understand how a marriage might collapse. Homosexuality is foreign to them and it seems much more threatening to the stability, purity and authenticity of the church." ” - Frank Griswold in Beliefnet

Although fear of the other is deeply rooted in mankind, it is difficult to understand why a topic, on which Jesus made no comment, not referenced in the creeds, referenced barely more than a handful times in all of Scripture, can be identified by some as a core issue in Christianity. How can this issue be used as a pretext for tearing the church apart?